Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Mr. Beda appealed. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Beda's motion seeking leave to file a rejoinder on grounds that there was no probative value to the rejoinder Mr. Beda sought to file, and there was nothing new in the Administration's answer that would require him to have an opportunity to provide a rebuttal or rejoinder. Turning to the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had applied the correct legal standard in its Judgment - whether the facts had been established by clear and convincing evidence - and properly assessed the evidence and credibility of witness testimony, making the...

Request for oral hearing: Given Mr. Toson¡¯s arguments wherein he wishes to contest evidence before the Dispute Tribunal in a manner that would be essentially a rehearing of the evidence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an oral hearing should not be granted and would not assist in expeditiously and fairly resolving the issues in this appeal. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Dispute Tribunal applied the appropriate standard of review. It reviewed the applicable policy of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA for selection processes (the PPM), reviewed the evidence, and determined that the applicable procedures were followed in the...

Mr. Okwir appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held that the OiC/OIOS had the authority to take the decision not to investigate Mr. Okwir¡¯s allegations. As Section 4.3 of ST/SGB/2019/2 provides that all subdelegations issued by the predecessor shall remain valid unless otherwise withdrawn or modified by the successor, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT concluded that the mere fact that the new USG/OIOS began her term did not make subdelegations by the predecessor invalid. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that on 25 October 2019, both the ASG/OIOS and the newly appointed USG/OIOS were competent to make the decision. The new USG...

Ms. Coleman appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in reaching its conclusion that it was reasonable for the Administration to decide that it was not in the interest of the Organization to keep Ms. Coleman on pay status whilst not performing work until the expiry of her fixed-term appointment, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT considered, inter alia, that: i) she had placed herself in a situation in which she could no longer perform her duties in Pakistan; ii) she had rejected the temporary assignment offered to her in South Soudan; and iii) she was not interested in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred both in not permitting the Appellant to call a witness (AA) and in the incorrect conclusions it drew from her hearsay evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, to the extent that BB (a non-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ staff member) was a witness adverse to the Appellant, the failure of the Secretary-General to secure her attendance before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT permitted an adverse inference which detracted considerably from the credibility and reliability of her allegations in the OIOS investigation report. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that little weight could be attached to the evidence of two unidentified Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ staff members, to whom the...

The contested decision identified by the Applicant is not a final administrative decision that is related to the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment or contract of employment. It is an operational decision of general application that promoted a change in the reporting lines of all staff members serving in that organization. Such a decision is within the scope of the managerial discretion of the organization in question. Accordingly, the application is not receivable ratione materiae.

At the time of the contested decision to not investigate his complaint of harassment and abuse of authority into his separation from service and alleged blacklisting, the Applicant had been separated from service for more than four and a half years and was no longer a staff member in the strict sense. Therefore, for the application to be receivable, the contested decision must have a bearing on the Applicant¡¯s status as a former staff member in the sense that it affects his previous contractual rights. In determining whether the contested decision affects the Applicant¡¯s previous contractual...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in failing to consider adequately the Appellant¡¯s evidence, noting she was not given the opportunity to prove her case, including allegations of discrimination, at the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT hearing, which included the opportunity to call evidence and to challenge the Administration¡¯s evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in allowing testimony to be given at the hearing that was neither sworn, affirmed, nor made under a promise, to tell the truth. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal, set aside the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and ordered reinstatement or the award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT adequately applied the appropriate principles set out in the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal judgment No. 1391 (2008) in considering whether or not a case of serious misconduct had been established and if so, whether the sanction of summary dismissal was appropriate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that the Appellant accepted lavish hospitality was a clear violation of the Procurement Division¡¯s Guidelines on Acceptance of Gifts and Hospitality by the Procurement Division Staff. Although the misconduct was based on a single incident, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that it would have been...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no dispute that the Appellant had a fixed-term appointment, which had no expectancy of renewal or of conversion to any other type of appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly dismissed most of the allegations brought by the Appellant since he had failed to raise them in a request for administrative review or management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.